Black Americans Imprisoned Disproportionately:
Re-"Enslavement" to Obstruct Their Right to Vote:
DWB—What Type Laws Would Prevent It
How the 2000 Election Was Stolen
How They Did It Again:
Stole the 2004 Election
(Includes Discussion of Relationship
of DWB Practices to Disproportionately
Denying Blacks The Right to Vote:
1.4 Million in Year 2000)
Don't Be Distracted by The Minors:
(Getting Every Vote Counted).
Focus on the Majors, The Big Picture:
The Preventing of Voting Eligibility
In The First Place:
(You Can't Count A Vote
Not Allowed to Be Cast!)

DWB ("driving while black"), "racial profiling," these terms refer to a certain portion of racism. Those with "white privilege," are not subjected to it. It's more than a matter of discrimination in terms of selective enforcement. (Other forms of racism occur on the job, for example, but this site focuses on a different aspect, "Voting While Black," VWB, or attempted VWB (aka "Voting While Black or Brown").

This site covers a major result of "racial profiling," a result of disproportionate arresting, convicting, jailing blacks: widespread disenfranchisement of would-be black voters so as to be not allowed to vote at all. (Details on how this is done are below.)

In 1883, “Thomas Fortune, a young black editor of the New York Globe testified before a Senate committee in 1883 about the situation of the Negro in the United States. He spoke of 'widespread poverty,' of government betrayal, of desperate Negro efforts to educate themselves. . . . Fortune spoke of 'the penitentiary system of the South, with its infamous chain-gang. . . . the object being to terrorize the blacks and furnish victims for contractors, who purchase the labor of these wretches from the state for a song. . . . the white man who shoots a negro always goes free, while the negro who steals a hog is sent to the chain-gang for ten years.'”—Prof. Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (New York: Harper and Row, 1980, reprinted, HarperPerennial, 1990), p 204.

The South went so far as to regularly fabricate false charges and caricatures. Not only arresting and convicting blacks, but even going outside the law, e.g., by lynching and torturing, were norms in the South. See background by, e.g., Prof. David Pilgrim, "The Brute Caricature" (Ferris State Univ, Nov 2000). Falsification continues. Modern police interrogation techniques themselves promote convicting the innocent. See Douglass Starr, "The Interview: Do police interrogation techniques produce false confessions"? (Dept. of Criminal Justice, The New Yorker, 9 December 2013), pp 42-49: The answer is "yes." The "Reid Technique" of interrogation used by police is promoted in the Reid Technique Manual. That book "reads like a bad psychology textbook. It is filled with assertions with no empirical proof," says Prof. SaulKassin, Ph.D. It is "junk science" in short. And that's what police use, instead of genuine valid methodology.

“The North, it must be recalled, did not have to undergo a revolution in its thinking to accept the subordination of the Negro. When the Civil War ended [1865], nineteen of the twenty-four northern states did not allow blacks to vote. By 1900, all the southern states, in new constitutions and new statutes, had written into law the disenfranchisement and segregation of Negroes, and a New York Times editorial said: 'Northern men . . . no longer denounce the suppression of the Negro vote. . . .'”—Zinn, History, supra, p 203.

When police disagree with laws, they ignore or defy them. For example, when the University of Mississippi was being desegregated in 1962 with the aid of U.S. marshals and Army troops, bigots, KKKers, etc., came on campus to riot and vandalize, says Univ. of Mississippi Political Science Prof. Russell H. Barrett, Integration at Ole Miss (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965), Chapters 4-5, pp 83-162. The police were to prevent this by blocking the campus entrances to non-students, and by making arrests of rioters. But instead, rioters had "entered the campus with no difficulty through the main entrance," p 143. "One of the [riotous] crowd called out to a patrolman, 'Why don't you . . . take the guns away from the marshals?' The patrolman repled, 'We can't do anything, but you can,'" p 143. One rioter "was sitting on the back of a [police] car shouting the worst kind of profanity at the marshals. Two students attempted to get him to leave, but he would not. Meanwhile the patrolmen were . . . encouraging him to continue his insults." "There are numerous reports that the [police] abandoned its control of the entrances . . . a large number of [police] cars left the campus," p 143. During the riot, rioters attacked people labeled "nigger lover" in their car, "Yelling and cheering, they began to rock the car, smashing the windows with rocks and bottles. Some tore off chrome ornaments with their bare hands, while two Mississippi patrolmen made an obvious point of looking the other way, drawing cheers from the [rioting] crowd," p 145. One victim "was shoved by the crowd and his camera smashed. A faculty member's wife asked a group of five patrolmen to help the injured man. One patrolmen told her, 'I don't see anything, lady,' and again the patrolmen smiled at each other. . . . two of them grabbed the victim's arms [to prevent him defending himself] while the mob continued to attack him," p 145.
"No highway patrolmen or 146anyone else [local police] made any attempts to arrest or even identify any of those committing violence," pp 145-146.

During the riot, "members of the mob threw" "gravel, eggs, pennies, and lighted cigarettes" "at the [U.S.] marshals. . . . the [Mississippi police] made no attempt to stop [the assaults] . . . Numerous faculty members and reporters saw members of the mob throw rocks, bricks, and bottles. . . . there was the sound of broken glass as an Army truck windshield shattered.

Let us transition into the current situation, by this simple example: In the 1960's-1970's, there was an unpopular-to-police black group, the Black Panther Party (BPB). The BPB alleged that police disproportionately issued their members traffic tickets. The police denied it. Prof. Frances K. Heussenstamm did an experiment. Twenty university students with excellent driving records, and cars with no defects, were assigned to make one change only: attach "Black Panther Party" stickers to the bumpers! The reaction: 33 traffic tickets in 17 days!! See Frances K. Heussenstamm, "Bumper Stickers and Cops," 8 Trans-action: Social Science and Modern Society (#4) pp 32-33 (February 1971).

In other words, contrary to the myth that the arresting official does NOT know who he is about to deal with, the real truth is, the decision is first made as to whom to target, then 'look for something.' Not at all the impartial scenario: first the violation, then the discovery of who did it!

Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., in "Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals" (Tuesday, 17 September 2013), says "At the state and local level every American faces brutal, armed psychopaths known as the police. . . . The American police perform no positive function. They pose a much larger threat to citizens than do the criminals who operate without a police badge. Americans would be safer if the police forces were abolished."

DWB: A Perversion ofPolice Tailgating

When police tailgate a motorist for a short period, then another, and another, what are they doing? Here is one part of the answer:
“The police officer is reading plate numbers into the radio/computer and waiting for a 'history' on the probable operator, the owner. If the report lists a litany of previous violations, DWI convictions, or outstanding warrant, the officer will concoct a reason to pull the vehicle over.”—Editor, 12 National Motorists Association Foundation News (#1) 13 (Jan/Feb 2001).
Another part of the answer is, especially at night, rushing up close behind you tail-gating. This can provoke you (from fear of unknown vehicle suddenly close behind you, in the dark, with potential for car-jacking or other assault) into 'flight' mode. You may then commit an action (e.g., quick-stopping at a 'stop' sign) leading to an excuse (police claim you didn't stop!) to stop you, ticket you.
“Pretextual traffic stops undermine the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system,” says John Holevoet, “Racial Profiling and Pretextual Traffic Stops,” 15 National Motorists Association Foundation News (#2) 7 (March/April 2004). Holevoet points out that “the Supreme Court ruled in Whren v. U.S. [517 US 806; 116 S Ct 1769; 135 L Ed 2d 89 (1996)] that traffic stops are constitutional regardless of the officer's motivations . . . even when the traffic stop is consciously being used as a means to an unjustifiable end [result].”
The centuries of law and police abuses show that this system cannot be “reformed.” It must be struck down and banned as unconstitutional, with the appointment of honest judges who will so rule.
And see "Police Officers and the Governments War on You Taking Pictures and Filming Cops."

Police can indeed know who they are following—BEFORE the stop.

But even that is the tip of the iceberg of the DWB process. This site covers that underlying aspect. The data here contains information likely new to most readers.

"It's a problem that's faced by police departments in every major city in our country, that criminals infilitrate and sign up to join the police force," says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, CXLVI Newsweek, p 23 (10 October 2005). See examples, e.g., by Guy Lawson and William Oldham, The Brotherhoods: The True Story of Two Cops Who Murdered for the Mafia (New York: Scribner, 2006); and Louis Eppolito, Mafia Cop (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992). Thus "there were a lot of dirty cops. Half of them seemed to have a price,"
Chapter 7, "The Amazing Life and Times of 'Gaspipe' Gasso," § 2, "The 19th Hole," p. 152. "Psychology books are packed with studies of the personality traits of men like [this]. They often possess a superficial charm and above-average intelligence. They rise to the top of large organizations, even nations. They usually aren't obviously irrational, at least at the beginning. They are shameless liars, as long as the lie serves their purpose. Among their characteristics are glibness, lack of empathy, an inability to accept responsibility or recognize the impact of their behavior on others--the things that make a narcissist [and] a short attention span," Brotherhoods, Chapter 7, "The Amazing Life and Times of 'Gaspipe' Gasso," § 1, "The Prospect," p. 146. Such criminals infilitrated into and hired by police departments of course have no interest in crime prevention. Instead, they have their own criminal purposes in mind. For example, "prisoners took unmerciful beatings in precinct houses all over the city. . . . If a perp had a couple of broken ribs there would be no problem. It was common to see prisoners with their heads wrapped in gauze to staunch the bleeding from blows to the head," Brotherhoods, Chapter 6, "Godfathers of the NYPD, § 5, "Internal Affairs," p. 129.

"Americans are in far greater danger from their own police forces than they are from foreign terrorists," says Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "America's police brutality pandemic" (27 September 2007). "The only terrorist most Americans will ever encounter is a policeman with a badge, nightstick, mace and Taser. . . . Police brutality has crossed the line from using excessive force against a resisting Rodney King to unprovoked gratuitous violence against persons offering no resistance, such as the elderly, women, students, and elected officials. Americans are not safe anywhere from police. Police attack Americans in university libraries, in public meetings, and in their own homes. . . . Another disturbing aspect is that no one tells the police to stop the brutality."

The infamous Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393, 407; 15 L Ed 691, 701 (1857) case which, contrary to the common law and Constitution, claimed that blacks "at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and . . . Constitution . . . had for more than a century before had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and . . . might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit . . . ."

Edward H. Hobbs, ed., Yesterday's Constitution Today (Mississippi: Bureau of Public Administration, 1960) (including data by Univ. of Mississippi Political Science Prof. Russell H. Barrett, saying "that Mississippi voting laws were designed to discriminate against Negroes and recommended numerous changes ranging from abolition of the poll tax to simplification of the registration forms," cited in Integration at Ole Miss (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965), Chap. 3, p 78. Chapter 1 of Prof. Barrett's Integration cites so-called "Citizens' Councils," white supremacists, and says, "In their early years the Councils worked hard to reduce the number of Negro voters, and within one year in four key counties in Mississippi the total fell by 75 percent. In the most successful [disenfranchisement] effort, in Sunflower County, Negro voters dropped to zero, and the Circuit Court [Voting Registrar] replied when asked, 'No Negro voters. This is the home of the Citizens' Councils.' [citing Memphis Commercial Appeal, 21 August 1955]. In Humphreys County one Negro active in voter registration was killed and another badly wounded, with no convictions for either crime [citing Memphis Commercial Appeal, 22 May 1955]," pp 27-28.

Jeremy Brecher, Strike! (San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books, 1972), pp 67-72 (has quotes from newspaper coverage of disturbances in 1890's Anderson County,
Tennessee. The state militia was assigned to escort prisoners to a job site to
break a strike. Interestingly, the employee's union showed that they had the militia
outnumbered and outarmed. The prisoners were then brought back to prison!)

Andrew L. Shapiro, "Challenging Criminal Disenfranchisement Under the Voting Rights Act: A New Strategy," 103 Yale Law Journal (#2) 537-566 (Nov 1993) (This is a most significant article, giving a glimpse of Confederates' manipulation of law-making after the Civil War so as to arrange disproportionate arresting and jailing of blacks (re-enslavement under a new label—prison), and thus take away their right to vote. It is this type of manipulation that abolitionist Michigan tried to head off in 1909 by the law discussed herein and at our many related websites.)

David Oshinsky, Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice (New York: The Free Press, 1996)

Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (London: Verso, 1996)

Matthew Mancini, One Dies, Get Another: Convict Leasing in the American South, 1866-1928 (Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1996).

Virginia Hench, "The Death of Voting Rights: The Legal Disenfranchisement of Minority Voters," 48 Case Western Reserve Law Rev (#4) 727-798 (Summer 1998)

Patrica Allard and Marc Mauer, Regaining the Vote: An Assessment of Activity Relating to Felon Disenfranchisement Law (The Sentencing Project, January 2000)

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Youth Law Center, “And Justice for Some” (Washington, DC, 25 April 2000) (Of youths imprisoned with adults, 75% are minority youth. Black youths are overall 600% more likely to be jailed than comparable white youths with identical records.)

"The Awful Truth" (2000) ("According to the Sentencing Project, African-American males are incarcerated at . . . more than four times the rate of Black males in South Africa.")

NCADP, "Racial Bias on Death Row" (2003) (“The system has proved itself to be wildly inaccurate, unjust, unable to separate the innocent men from the guilty and, at times, a very racist system,” says former Illinois Governor George Ryan)

American Blackout (25 Jan 2006) (movie that “chronicles the recurring patterns of disenfranchisement witnessed from 2000 to 2004”). This video documentary directed by Ian Inaba, and including information from, e.g., Rep. Cynthia McKinney, begins "with the detailed argument that black voters in Florida were systematically disenfranchised in the 2000 presidential election." The "film then pulls double duty: It's a fine-tooth examination of both the continued, unconstitutional marginalization
of black voters in America and the attempts by various political and media machines
to crush McKinney in retaliation for her outspokenness on that subject and on the
illegality of the war in Iraq."

“Debt to Society" (September 2007) (“There are more people behind bars in the United States today than ever before. Since 1980, the inmate population has more than quadrupled to two million—an unprecedented explosion that is incurring unprecedented costs to all Americans.”)

Prof. Brent J. Aucoin, A Rift in the Clouds: Race and the Southern Federal Judiciary (Fayetteville: Univ of Arkansas Press, 2007) (H-Law Review by Prof. Lewie Reece: Excerpt: "By 1900, southern states were completing the racial and class-based disfranchisement of both African Americans and poor whites. That was bad enough, but American society in the early 1900s was also deeply committed to the guiding principles of white supremacy. This was in no stretch of the imagination limited to the South. Americans as a society firmly approved of disfranchisement as well as lynching and the segregated racial order. Not only was the Reconstruction effort to craft constitutional racial equality considered a critical error, but in many ways efforts at emancipation itself were deemed erroneous too. The justification of white supremacy was propounded for an enthusiastic audience in a vast array of social scientific literature, law review articles, magazines, and newspapers.")

Rebecca McLennan, The Crisis of Imprisonment: Protest, Politics and the
Making of the American Penal State, 1776-1941 (Cambridge, 2008).

Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., "Criminals With Badges" (2 January 2008) ("The American police have never prevented crimes. In olden days, the police solved crimes by finding the guilty party. No more. In our time, the police create crimes. And that is why the US prison population is twice the size of China’s, an authoritarian country with a population four to five times larger than America’s. . . . There you have it. The American Police – "support your local Gestapo" – spend their time engineering false crimes and not investigating real crimes. Americans are more at risk from the police than they are from criminals. . . . Never make the mistake of calling the police, and never get stopped by a traffic cop. You run the risk that he will drop a bag of drugs into your car and arrest you on a drug offense. If you encounter a police officer, be sure you have thousands of dollars with which to buy him off from making false charges. Most police charges are false charges. Americans need to wake up to this fact or the American prison population will outstrip the rest of the world combined."

William Poundstone, Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What Can Be Done About It) (Hill & Wang, February 2008) (Interview: "ours may be the worst of all the voting systems in common use"; Review, overemphasizes "spoilers" but does note certain voting system flaws)

Adam Liptak, "Inmate Count in US Dwarfs Other Nations’" (The New York Times, 23 April 2008) ("The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. . . . The United States . . . has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. . . . The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.")

Pamela Clark, "An In-Depth Look at the U.S. Prison Industry" (2011) ("The U.S. prison system is the largest in the world, not only in terms of overall number of inmates, but as a percentage of the total population as well. With over 2.3 million people behind bars, U.S. prisoners represent almost 25% of the world's total prison population (the U.S. population is 5% of the world)."

Jeffrey Tucker, "The Prison System is a Violation of Human Rights" (8 August 2014) ("If the jailed lived in one place, the 2.3 million would be the fourth largest American city, between Chicago and Houston. . . . Some two-thirds of people mired in the justice system (prison, probation, parole) are in for nonviolent offenses. Among federal prisoners, 91% are in for nonviolent crimes. No dictator in the world gets away with this.")

Some people mention “reconciliation.” Step one is of course, ending the attack in process.
Reconciliation does NOT mean, for example, bankers' reconciliation with robbers while the robbery is in process!
Genuine reconciliation means, first and foremost, stopping the in-process attack(s). Agreed?!! That's step one?
Be assured, if someone professes to advocate "reconciliation," "friendship," WITHOUT mentioning ending the attack(s) in process, he is himself an attacker—aiding and abetting, accessory to same.

DWB, Driving While Black or Brown. This site examines the situation in a way different than you likely have seen. This site is based on medical and historical legal research data, an area of knowledge generally overlooked, except among specialists.

This more-detailed explanation is contrary to the lay myths you have heard all your life, so bear with us, keep reading, though every sentence may offend some long-cherished myth.

"Partem aliquam recte intelligere nemo potest, antequam totum, iterum atque iterum, periegerit."No one can rightly understand any part until he has read the whole again and again.
Meaning: Re-read this site, and the references, "again and again" until you understand them in full.

Voting While Black (or Brown)

Ulterior-Motives-Based Law Manipulations Background

First, we start with background on law manipulation for ulterior purposes. Such manipulation of law is not new. For example, the U.S. colonies in the pre-1776 American Revolution era, had been part of the British colonial system.

There was data on law manipulations occurring in that system. What were those manipulations?

Answer: King William I was the illegitimate (i.e., bastard) son of Robert the Devil.

Who was "Robert the Devil"?

Robert was the 'conqueror' of William's mother.

Who was Robert's father?

Robert was son of a Viking, Rollo the Pirate.

How did Robert get his wife?

His father Rollo had been raiding, invading France. Little Robert took his share of the loot, he seized a French peasant girl. She became the mother of William. William was illegitimate, hence, a 'bastard.'

Robert the Devil was son of Rollo the Pirate.

Who was Rollo the Pirate?

Answer: He was a Viking, a Norseman, from Norway.

How did he end up in Normandy, France?

Rollo had a gang of toughs, pirates. By pillaging, looting, killing, and 'conquering' throughout Western France, Rollo extorted by conquest, the exalted title of "Duke of Normandy!"

Now this pirate Rollo is in the French nobility, the French government!

This pirate's son was Robert. When Rollo died, Robert became "Duke of Normandy."

His grandson was William, living in Normandy. On the death of Robert, little William became the "Duke" of Normandy.

Normandy was next door to England!—just across the channel. The Norse Viking pirate Rollo did not pass on to his son Robert, respect for rights. Hence Robert the Devil 'conquered' the French girl (Herleva of Falasia) who became William's mother.

Little William the Bastard followed daddy Robert's bad example.

He got his wife about the same way as daddy Robert the devil had done!

William also 'conquered' his wife. She was a neighboring French noble's daughter (Mathilda, daughter of Count Baldwin of Flanders).

William had a reputation of cutting off the hands of people who teased him about his being a bastard, leaving them to bleed to death!

Criticism, or the word "No," those were definitely NOT words to use on William.

So the girl means 'No.' So he came to her parent's castle anyway! For her. Like a rough first date! Seized her on the 'first date.'

Actually, she saw him, ran to her room, slammed the door.

He ran after her, chased her, broke down the door, broke into her room, lifted her up by the hair, and proceeded to kick her, and kick her, until she agreed to marry him!

Now William the Bastard, now married to Mathilda, is in the legitimate French nobility.

Is that enough for William?

No.

Next thing he wants, he wants to conquer the neighboring country. He wants to conquer England, just across the channel.
He wants to kick out the English king, Harold II. William succeeds, becomes known as "William the Conqueror."

William thereby set in motion the dynastic process leading to the current Queen Elizabeth II. This is not the stuff of which people's rights are much respected.

The above summarizes an early aspect of the corrupt process in English history, whereunder colonial and U.S. laws came to have their origin.
Here is a brief pertinent summary:

Note the example of the ancient world, "the Germanic tribes of the north" and "the two . . . Germanic tribes, the Angles and the Saxons, [who] settled in England." "By and large, imprisonment was not used as a punishment," say Phyllis Elperin Clark, M.A., and Robert Lehrman, M.F.A., Doing Time: A Look at Crime and Prisons (New York: Hastings House, 1980), p 24. Restitution was made "to their victims," p 25.

So, "we should ask how the idea of prison took root in our culture. . . . for most of Western history, the prison sentence was practically unknown," p 18.

What changed? "When the Normans conquered England in 1066, two different forms of [so-called] justice met. The [power-mad] Norman kings were not 25used to the Anglo-Saxon idea of leaving justice in private hands, but they were quick to see the advantage of fines as a form of punishment. They made one change . . . instead of paying the fines [restitution] to their victims, offenders were now ordered to pay the money to the king," pp 24-25.

One “important factor [in the British monarchy having decided to begin defining crimes] was . . . to build up a strong central government. Acts [previously legal] became crimes.

“As the king [government] became more powerful, legislation against private crime increased and after the Norman conquest [of England by William the Conqueror, 1066] a distinct body of criminal law evolved for the first time. . . ."

“As part of his policy of strengthening the central government, Henry II (1154-89) established the system [leading to modern] judges.

“[In the] reign of Henry VII [1485-1509] . . . a strong central government [did] emerge . . . reflected by a great increase in the types of crimes against which legislation was passed. . . .

“Under the Stuarts [1603-1689; King James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II], the need to raise money for the crown led to [yet more] new crimes being defined.”—“Crime,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol 6, pp 754-758 (this quote, pp 756-757) (1963).

the “lawyerization” of criminal trials into an “adversary procedure” abolishing the old citizen equality concept, distorting and suppressing truth, bestowing an enormous advantage on the wealthier party, a “wrong turn” in legal history, cited by John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial: Oxford Studies in Modern Legal History Series (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003)

the long-term pattern of manipulation passed on generation after generation by pre-Confederates, “Willie Lynch Manipulation Speech” (1712).
"It's a problem that's faced by police departments in every major city in our country, that criminals infilitrate and sign up to join the police force," says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, CXLVI Newsweek, p 23 (10 October 2005).

Bottom line: Criminal laws were invented not to protect people, but rather as a bullying manipulation to increase government power and revenue! for a pirate's dynasty and government!

This is not to overlook the ego trip, adrenalin rush, and psychopathic elements prevalent among polticians.
Note

World Health Organization data, “Wide research needed to solve the problems of mental illness,” World Mental Health, Vol 12, pages 138-141 (WHO Press Release, October 1960) (“people with psychopathic make-up often become leaders”); and

James C. Coleman, Ph.D., Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th ed (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co, 1976), p 10 (on the long-verified prevalence of psychopaths as high officials; “individuals with psychopathic personality makeup, who tend to exploit power for selfish purposes and have little concern for ethical values or social progress, often become leaders”).

Observe especially neo-Confederate politicians. “It is difficult today to comprehend the psychosis of the southern mind. . . .,” says Prof. Clement Eaton, The Freedom-of-Thought Struggle in the Old South (Duke Univ Press, 1940, and New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p 384. P 140 cites them as described as “a set of drunkards, gamblers, and whoremongers,” by abolitionist Daniel Worth. Wherefore due to such factors as that corrosive influence, the U.S.A. is the highest, the worst, in terms of sheer numbers of prosecutions and incarcerations.
Note the Election Fraud committed by the South and upheld by the President in Kansas in 1850's. The government fought for the election stealing. Southerners saw they could continue this type abuse.
For an example of the criminal prosecution system targeting blacks vs whites for same activity, see “Sex Across the Color Line: Marcus Dixon, Emmett Till and the New/Old South,” by Tim Wise, Black Commentator, Issue 71 (1 Jan 2004).
See also Bruce Dixon, "Mass Incarceration is an Abomination," Black Commentator, Issue # 147 (21 July 2005).
For data on the invention of police departments for social control purposes, and on the process of massively increasing arrests by not following the "Good Neighbor" policy (informal actions such as warnings vs outright arrests), see
"The Demand for Order and the Birth of Modern Policing," by Kristian Williams, 55 Monthly Review (#7) 16-23 (December 2003).

These reasons (crime-defining for power and revenue) continue to be true. Now, after nine centuries of law-manipulations-practice, the crime-defining process is intentionally used by politicians for deliberate malicious legislative purposes.

Why are we saying this? in DWB context? Answer: Such 'crime-defining' purposes include disenfranchisements of black voters.

Post-Civil-War
Systemic Abuses Begin

Unreconstructed Confederates saw that they could do that! They could define, create, invent, new crimes!

Next, they could establish a vastly enlarged prison system!

They did so with great malice. They had wanted slavery to continue. They had lost the Civil War (1861-1865).

Slavery was not ended properly. America never repented of slavery. (Slavery was ended by war, not by repentance.) As soon as the slaves were free, they were abandoned by the North, and brutalized and lynched by the “Religious Right” “Bible-Belt” South. The Bible precedent that one might suppose the "Bible Belt" would appreciate on ending slavery, had not been followed:

providing to the freed slaves payment for their labor, in the form of valuables such as jewels, gold, clothing, and supplies. Exodus 12:35-36.

killing 10% of the pro-slavery people, i.e., the first-born, about 10% of the 20 million people, i.e., about two million.

with the bottom-line resulting in wealth so great that silver was spurned (like stones! or in modern terms, small bills), as gold (large bills) was had in such significant abundance (1 Kings 10:21 and 27 and 2 Chronicles 1:15)!

Instead of such combination of penalty and "reparations" occurred, the unrepentant slavers were left alive in full possession of their stolen wealth, the product of the unpaid labor of the slaves. These people in the South brutalized the 'freed' slaves, murdered many, and continued revenge via tobacco poisonings and mass criminalization.

Slavers were left alive, but they were unappreciative and resentful. See, for example, this quote:

“We [of the South] have been confronted by the condition of a large, ignorant, debased vote, thrust upon us by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. That vote stands as a menace to the freedom, to the purity of the ballot box, to the purity and honest of elections, to sthe decency of government, and it is there forever until there is a constitutional provision made here which will relieve us from it.”—South Carolina Senator Benjamin Tillman (1847-1918), Congressional Record, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., pp 2245, 3224 (1899).

Tillman bragged in 1900, "We have done our level best [to prevent blacks from voting] . . . we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it." (Quoted by Rayford Logan, The Betrayal of the Negro from Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson [New York: Da Capo Press, 1997], p. 91).

Slavers had lost political power. Slavers had controlled the Electoral College, as noted by Lewis Tappan, Social and Political Evils of Slavery (1843), pp 50-51. They wanted that Slavery Era control of the Electoral College back. How to get it?

Here is a part of the answer, an example. "The prison system in the U.S. remained generally unaltered until the Civil War ended. Following the Civil War, slavery was abolished as a private institution, but the cleverly worded 13th Amendment provided a very large exception, stating: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime…shall exist within the United States.” In the ensuing months and years, states revised the Slave Codes into new “Black Codes,” imprisoning former slaves for acts such as missing work, handling money carelessly, and performing “insulting gestures.” A massive influx of former slaves into the penitentiary resulted, a new form of slavery was born, and the racialization of the U.S. punishment system took root. The unpaid labor of the newly created, mostly black, convict lease system helped the South achieve industrialization," says Jenny Truax, "The U.S. System of Punishment: an expanding balloon of wealth, racism and greed" (28 October 2010)

In short, slavers developed a prison system, comprising a re-enslavement system. That is bad enough. But worse was to come. That system

The superintendent (Thomas Murton) of one prison who objected to this type systemic abuse (including use of "the Tucker telephone, a torture device used to send an electrical shock to an inmate's testicles" and requiring inmates "to produce enough . . . income to meet the entire costs of running the facility and . . . whipped for not doing their share") was "rebuked by the governor . . . threatened with arrest . . . fired for offending and embarrassing his political superior . . . subsequently became a criminal justice professor at the University of Minnesota."

Connie Cass, “Report: 1 of Every 75 U.S. Men in Prison” (Associated Press, Friday, 28 May 2004) (The U.S. is No. 1 in incarcerations in the world. The U.S. has more people per capita incarcerated than any other nation in the world. “In 2003, 68 percent of prison and jail inmates were members of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. An estimated 12 percent of all black men in their 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.7 percent of Hispanic men and 1.6 percent of white men in that age group.”)

Bob Herbert, "America's Abu Ghraibs" (New York Times, Monday, 31 May 2004) ("Not only are inmates at prisons in the U.S. frequently subjected to similarly grotesque treatment, but Congress passed a law in 1996 to ensure that in most cases they were barred from receiving any financial compensation for the abuse. We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women. And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved, weak and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them.")

"a colored prisoner farm . . . three miles out of Clarksdale, Mississippi.

"[The author] was the cook's helper, and saw some of what went on. Every time a prisoner came they whipped him, called it 'nitiating' him, to let him know where his whipping post was; and they whipped him again before he went out to work. . . . They'd give him an extra gift for his work. . . . They would make him lay on his stomach crost a barrel, and some would hold his head and the others his feet. And the whipping boss, a white man, would whip him with a strap of leather with round holes cut in it, to make blisters on the skin.

"I saw them whip one man to death . . . morning and night until he . . . just lay in his cage. . . . He couldn't even get [up] to get his food. The feeder wasn't allowed [to help, just] leave the sick man's [food out-of-reach]. I'd [instead] take the bread and roll it up in a piece of paper and throw it to his bunk, like a puppy. They told me I'd get prison for life if they found that out. He died and they buried him in the farm cemetary, just like he was; didn't wash or change him. 'Cause the hole was too short they stomped on him, mashed, tramped, bent him down in there, and threw dirt on him."

Torture had been a way of life before the Civil War. Nothing changed thereafter in neo-Confederates' attitudes.

In fact, the neo-Confederates, soon after the Civil War,

"developed a new form of slavery known as convict leasing. Renting prisoners from the states' overcrowded prison systems provided the contractors with cheap labor and the states with welcome revenue.

"As the demand for convict labor increased, blacks were arrested on ever more petty charges such as vagrancy, fistfighting or carrying a weapon, and shipped off to chain gangs. There they were ill-fed, poorly clothed and brutally treated; the death rate among them ran as high as 50 percent in South Carolina."—Richard W. Murphy, et al., ed., The Nation Reunited: War's Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), p 124.

"Meanwhile the vicious system generated enormous fortunes for some. A planter named Edmund Richardson got control of almost all the convicts in Missiissippi and became for a time the biggest cotton producer in the South; by dealing shrewdly in convicts, Alabama state warden John H. Bankhead grew wealthy on a salary of $2,000 a year; Georgia's . . . political boss Joseph Brown made his postwar fortune with convicts leased from the state for seven cents a day.

"In fact, so many powerful people profited from the system that it took reformers decades to end it." Murphy, supra, p 124. See also Prof. Richard Wormser, The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2003) and PBS.

But reformers ended only one tiny portion of the abuses. Let's see what was not ended.

Reformers failed to end the money motivation in the "criminal justice" system. "Crime is down, but the prison biz is booming—it creates jobs and corporate profits." "[E]very one of them . . . becomes another lasting monument . . . to the fear and greed and political cowardice that now pervade American society."—Eric Schlosser, "The Prison-Industrial Complex," 282 Atlantic Monthly (#6) 51-77 (Dec 1998).

In reading the next section, bear in mind this fact: Southerners already knew how to manipulate their state constitutions to violate basic moral and legal principles, such as those in the Declaration of Independence.—Rev. John Rankin, Letters on American Slavery (Ohio: 1823), p 68.

This crucial crimininalization-related fact was known as long as the 17th century: "Tobacco, with its mind-dulling narcotic capacities, was ideally suited to [convey] character ranges from naive, earthy simpleton to diligent worker to aggressive brute. Not unlike the breakfast beer soup that predated coffee as a morning drink, tobacco was, in a sense, a way of keeping the lower classes in their place–a class in a perpetual state of drunkenness poses little threat. Along the same lines, the peasant [or black] represented a means to criticize tobacco use as a dirty and unsophisticated custom, but at the same time to justify further commerce in tobacco and its related products," says "The Culture of Smoke: Low-Life" (New York Public Library, 1997-1998, citing 17th century attitutde, already well-aware of tobacco's brain damaging and debilitating qualities.

"The 18th-century smoking club [used] the devilish herb. In this milieu, its [tobacco's] narcotic effects are plainly, blatantly sought and achieved," says "The Culture of Smoke: High-Life" (New York Public Library, 1997-1998, citing 18th century awareness of tobacco as narcotic, a fact then easily known to the Confederates.

In short, the US prison system began its massive expansion after the Civil
War. Angry hate-filled revenge-seeking unreconstructed Confederates, conservatives angry at Yankees, determined to

a. massively expand their crime causation system

b. flood America with the starter drug so as to massively increase drug use

c. set in motion a vast crime harvest.

d. massively jail people, especially black people

e. damage the economy by massively increasing our prison costs

The Development ofPost-Civil-War-Law Abuses

“When you head South, you're talking about two things—tobacco farmers and evangelicals,” said Ralph Reed.

Their own records show knowledge of the fact that tobacco effects include "disturbances . . . on the bronchial surface of the lung" and the fact that "no smoker can ever be said . . . to be well."—"Effects of Tobacco," The Confederate States Medical & Surgical Journal (November 1864).

The roots of the modern DWB-VWB process began shortly after the Civil War. Here's how it came about. We start with unknown-to-laymen medical data on the drug-sequence useage process:

Cigarettes are the starter drug, the one typically first-used. Minority youth are disproportionately targeted to do this. Tobacco pushers sell illegal cigarettes to minority children in particular, as shown by Elizabeth A. Klonoff, et al., "An Experimental Analysis of Sociocultural Variables in Sales of Cigarettes to Minors," 87 Am J Pub Health (#5) 823-826 (May 1997). Illegal sales are MORE to minority youth, than to white youth. See also details by Meg Gallogly, "Tobacco Company Marketing to African-Americans" (5 January 2006).

Cigarettes cause "the worst of all drug habits, the smoking of tobacco"—Herbert H. Tidswell, M.D., The Tobacco Habit: Its History and Pathology (London: J. & A. Churchill, 1912), p 69.

Slavery was disproportionately by tobacco farmers. They began the major use of slaves in the U.S. See Glenn Porter, ed., Encyclopedia of American Economic History, Vol II (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980), "Slavery," pp 552-561. It says "of the American slave population . . . most worked in tobacco," p 552. This occurred early, "by the end of the [seventeenth] century [1700] plantation gangs were almost wholly composed of Negroes."—Jerome E. Brooks, The Mighty Leaf: Tobacco Through the Centuries (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1952), p 99.

Cigarettes are a Confederate product which abolitionists boycotted (like modern boycotts of apartheid South Africa). For this website, we confine our analysis to the fact that cigarettes are the starter drug delivery mechanism, foreseeably leading to subsequent additional drug abuse. (Our other websites (see overview) provide more details).

A significant factor in slavery was rape, mass rape. In the post-Civil War era, these same people, now called "ex"-Confederates, resented Yankees having "stolen" their slaves. Among many reprisals, they resisted blacks' right to vote.

“The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.”

—Thomas Paine, Founding Father

Election - 1860

The "red states" - "blue states" issue was evident then. Recall that many "red states," called "grey" then, did not accept the results of the election. They resented that Abraham Lincoln had been duly elected. So they organized massive violence to try to overthrow the election results! For more background on the subject, see our excerpt from the pertinent book by Henry Wilson, The History of the Rise and Fall of Slavepower in America by Henry Wilson (Boston, 1877).

The seceding "red states" resented that the 1860 election was barely won by the anti-slavery-expansion party of Abraham Lincoln. The pro-slavery side running John Breckinridge for President had nearly won. Lincoln had not won a majority of the popular vote, only about 39.8%. Lincoln had barely won a majority in the slavery-dominated Electoral College.
The pro-slavery "red states" side was so dominant, that if just one state, say, New York, had switched sides, Lincoln would not have had an Electoral College majority; and the Presidency under the Constitution would have been decided by the House of Representatives.
“Breckinridge was pledged to take” “pro-slavery actions. He certainly would have appointed pro-slavery justices to . . . the Supreme Court. . . . Breckinridge also favored the admission of New Mexico and other national territories . . . as slave states, so the balance between free and slave states would have been permanently destroyed. [Also a factor] was the determination of Breckinridge [advocates] to extend the empire of slavery by purchasing, or conquering, Cuba. . . . a Breckinridge victory would have assured that the United States remained a slaveholding nation.” Reference: History Prof. David Herbert Donald, “1860: The Road Not Taken,” 35 Smithsonian (#7) 54-56 (October 2004).
The South could easily see that if it could control just one more such state, it could retain control of the nation.

Coming so close to having won, the seceding "red states" vowed to in essence overturn the election results. Remember, that same anti-election results continues.

"When the registration of voters in the 10 unreconstructed Southern states was completed in September of 1867, there were an estimated 735,000 blacks and 635,000 whites on the rolls." Murphy, supra, p 67.

1867 Registered Voters Data: Examples

State

Black

White

Alabama

104,000

61,000

Florida

16,000

11,000

Georgia

95,000

96,000

Louisiana

84,000

45,000

Mississippi

60,000

46,000

North Carolina

72,000

106,000

South Carolina

80,000

46,000

Virginia

105,000

120,000

The unreconstructed Confederates saw that for the then upcoming 1868 election, that in a number of locations, they could be outvoted. But they also saw that they could re-dominate, if they would ruthlessly obstruct and prevent black voting.

Do that, obstruct black voting, they could re-dominate America and the Presidency, as before the Civil War. (For background, see abolitionist Henry Wilson's analysis.)

And remember, before the Civil War, blacks generally could not vote.

The 'ex-'Confederates, "unreconstructed Cofnederates," saw, plainly, in the close 1868 election, that they could re-dominate America and the Presidency only if blacks were once again, rendered unable to vote.

You may recall that Andrew Johnson was then President having been elected with Lincoln in 1864. Why did his party not re-nominate him, and instead chose Grant? Because Johnson had "sold out," sold out to the South. He sabotaged Reconstruction efforts, ignored the mass violence and lynchings of blacks, ignored the anti-black laws being passed in Southern states, generally took a wicked anti-freedom, pro-South position on every point.
His party saw that he was abandoning its policies, and positioning himself to get Southern votes to be re-elected. He pretended to be trying to unify the country after the War, but in reality, had no such interest.
He had been a long-time illiterate who couldn't read until his wife taught him. He hated blacks. He had had slaves and had typical slaver morals (the webmaster personally knows one of his black descendants!)
Johnson did not care about blacks' rights, so had no moral qualms about selling out America, about taking the immoral point of view. His emphasis was promoting his personal vanity, covetousness, and greed.
As having lived in the "Slave Power," in Tennessee,
he well knew the South's long-time lockhold on the federal government and its obsessive pro-slavery policies in defiance of the Constitution.
“The policy of the federal government down through the years, despite several conspicuous exceptions, had been predominantly supportive of slavery. . . . That was the impression given in the national capital . . . . That was the image presented in diplomacy to the rest of the world.”—Don E. Fehrenbacher, Ph.D. (1920-1998), The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relation to Slavery, ed. Ward M. McAfee (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Johnson was willing to go along, so abandoned his party, so it naturally did not nominate him, but chose war hero General Grant instead.

The unreconstructed Confederates clearly saw that the black vote was sufficient to swing elections against them, including at the Presidency. For example, in 1868, Presidential candidate General Ulysses S. Grant LOST the election among the nation's total 5,000,000 white voters (North and South combined), 2,300,000 vs 2,700,00 for the opponent. So Grant's opponent would have won by 400,000 votes, and restored Southern control immediately, the first election after Lincoln!

Unreconstructed Southerners (e.g., KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest) saw that if they (see KKK History Video) could eliminate the black vote (or just significantly reduce it), they could once again dominate America and the Presidency. So how to do that?

The U.S. Constitution, seemingly, forbad the South from directly stopping blacks from voting. But the ex-Confederates found a loop-hole.

Referring to this loophole does not mean that intimidation and mass murders were not also used. But this site focuses on what is continuing to present. Examples of mass murders in the post-Civil-War South are too numerous to list. But here are examples.

One "election day, armed whites turned blacks away from the polls while voting repeatedly themselves [with] a cannon loaded with chains and slugs trained on the voting place . . . Any blacks brave enough to approach the ballot boxes were surrounded and beaten . . . [example] where there had been a racial massacre, seven [anti-neo-Confederate] votes were recorded in this election, compared to 2,500 in the previous one."
Murphy, supra, pp 147-148.

In Mississippi, the neo-Confederates "obliterated the [opposing] majority of 30,000 votes of two years earlier and replaced it with a [neo-Confederate] majority of 30,000." Murphy, supra, pp 148.

Conclusion from the 1868 example of a 300,000 vote margin: It takes changing merely 60,000 votes in just five Southern states for national election results to be reversed. And there had been eleven states in the Confederacy! This was far more than enough for the South to once again dominate the federal government. The motive to destroy the black vote was clearly there, raising the topic at hand, the continuing assault on the black vote to change election results.
Post-war Confederate guerillas went so far in one area as to post a murder notice of killings to "continue until the Radical Party is exterminated . . .," say Prof. James M. Smallwood, Barry A. Crouch, and Larry Peacock, Murder and Mayhem: The War of Reconstruction in Texas (College Station: Texas A&M Univ Press, 2003), p 82 (Review 1, 2,
3). Confederate guerillas "understood the political situation . . . continued to drape themselves in the Lost Cause and posture as Confderate heroes trying to save . . . the old pro-slavery party," p 82. Confederate guerillas "ordered all freedpeople in the area to leave the state altogether . . . disobedience would mean 'immediate, instant death,'" p 82. Unionists realized "that one of the principal objects to be attained by 'the notice and threats to Union men, white and black[,] was to discourage them and tender them powerless at the anticipated Election.'" The Confderate guerillas succeeded, their violent actions "'to compel the Unionists through fraud to leave the country, this having to a great extent been accomplished,'" p 82. Confederate guerillas "searched for any means, fair or foul, to discourage white Unionists and freedmen from voting," p 82.
See also David W. Padrusch, Aftershock: BeyondtheCivilWar (A & E, 2006), for more on the Confederate violence pattern. For example, Confederates in
1866 New Orleans wounded, shot, and dispersed the delegates to the Lousiana constitutional convention, and their supporters, lest they vote to allow blacks to vote.
"Much more mayhem developed before [one] chapter of the Second Civil War ran its course. Writing . . . in July of 1869, Lt. William Hoffman may have given the best analysis of the turmoil, an analysis that is still thought provoking for those who study the Reconstruction era today. Hoffman said that the Southern rebels' hatred for the white loyalists and for the freedmen was such that it could never be overcome. The freedmen's situation was deplorable, he said, as he echoed the sentiments of all those who had seen blacks robbed or beaten, raped or murdered. White Union civilians were similarly persecuted, with some of their number also being killed. Even worse, Lieutenant Hoffman surmised that the [Confederate] hatred would be passed from one generation to the next: 'The coming generation, children and children's children[,] are zealously reared to the one great tenet: implacable hatred to the [Union] government.' The subsequent history of the South suggests that young Hoffman knew of what he spoke," say Prof. Smallwood, et al, Murder and Mayhem, supra, p 116.
See also Ronald Brownstein, The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America (2007).
"Attitudes that provoked the Civil War and still cause much red state-blue state nastiness have never disappeared, whether the issue is race, religion, guns, states' rights, trade, central banks or immigration," a quote from the
review by Prof. GeoffreyWawro of the book
by SimonWinchester, OBE, The Men Who United the States (Harper Collins Pub, 15 October 2013). Thus, for example, in Confederate Georgia, a century and half after the Civil War, a Georgia county (Dekalb) still lists "slave" as an occupation on an official government form, the jury questionnaire, says Travis Gettys, "Residents Shocked that Dekalb County Juror Form Lists Slave as Occupation" (27 November 2013).
In Congress, a number of black congressmen, newly elected after the Civil War, sought to prevent this type assault on rights. Laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the Ku Klux Klan Act were passed. Click here for excerpts of speeches on same. But the grey vs blue continues even yet, renamed as red states vs blue states.
Constitutionally, of course, the right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. "Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665; 86 S. Ct. 1079; 16 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1966). But we see here, how easily that constitutional principle has been circumvented in practice.

Presidential Election Background 1860-1884

The Presidential Elections 1860-1884 Site features cartoons from Harper's Weekly, especially by Thomas Nast, and from Vanity Fair, Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly, Puck, and the Library of Congress Collection of American Political Prints, 1766-1876. In addition to explanations of each cartoon, the site has biographies, explanations of issues, campaign overviews, and other relevant information.

The 1876 Presidential Election

For information on the corruption of the 1876 election, in which Southern states such as Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, played a significant role, see sites such as

And see details below.
The 1876 Presidential election result was not finally known until two days before Inauguration Day, 4 March 1877. This precedent contrasts with the Supreme Court 12 December 2000, rushing a halt to the vote counting process, weeks before the scheduled Inauguration Day, 20 January 2001.
The 1876 election theft was so notorious as to have resulted in a classic novel, Gore Vidal's 1876: A Novel (New York: Random House, 1976; and London: Heinemann, 1976).

Southerners had already shown ability to carry on evil for centuries, passing it on to descendants for generations, says George Mellen, Unconstitutionality of Slavery (Boston: Saxton & Pierce, 1841), p 29.
This passing on the Old South's hatreds continues to present (March 2013). See “CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel” (15 March 2013): “A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans. The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. . . . After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, 'why can’t we just have segregation?' . . . . ThinkProgress spoke with Terry, who sported a Rick Santorum sticker and attended CPAC with a friend who wore a Confederate Flag-emblazoned t-shirt, about his views after the panel. . . . When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said 'I’d be fine with that.' He also claimed that . . . 'all the Tea Parties' were concerned with the same racial problems that he was. At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, 'I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.' He claimed to be a direct descendent of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.”

Unreconstructed Southerners hated America for winning the Civil War; "loathing of the North was widespread and unrelenting. A Savannah woman taught her children never to utter the word ‘Yankee' without adding the epithets ‘hateful' and ‘thieving.' A North Carolina innkeeper told a Northern journalist that the Yankees had killed his sons, burned his house and stolen his slaves, leaving him only with the privilege of venting his spleen: ‘I get up at half-past four in the morning, and sit up till twelve at night, to hate ‘em.'" Source: Richard W. Murphy, ed. The Civil War: The Nation Reunited: War's Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), p 28.

Naturally the South was filled with hate of the North. The North had stopped their "fun."

Slavers had committed rape; the 1860 census had shown 588,000 mulatto women. Source: Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p 154. Quadroons are offspring of a mulatto and a white; octoroons, of a quadroon and a white. Slavers could make 20 times annual pay, by raping the slave woman. Pretty quadroons and octoroons sold for $2,500, 20 times normal white worker pay. Rape = wealth for tobacco farmer rapists.

"A few traders had [had] special rooms for displaying 'choice stock'—pretty quadroons and octoroons who fetched up to $2,500 or more from New Orleans brothel owners."—Davis, The Civil War: Brother: The War Begins, supra, p 51. Est. 15 prostitution clients per slave-girl per day, @ $0.50 each, for 300 days, is $2,225 in one year, a large (89%) return on investment.

This "fancy girls" issue, "choice stock," had related to "'that which is ever a curse to a slave girl'—personal beauty," says Lerone Bennett, Jr., Before the Mayflower: A History of the Negro in America 1619-1964, rev. ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), chap. 4, p 86.

These issues had long been cited by Rev. John Rankin, Letters (1823), pp 34-35 (unchastity), and p 33 (nudity).

Slavers, tobacco farmers, had invented modern public live pornography, strip-shows. "The slaves . . . were paraded in front of the white shoppers . . . women were often stripped. . . 'The customers would feel our bodies,' recalled a former slave."—Davis, The Civil War: Brother: The War Begins, supra, p 50. The lazy, stupid, ignorant scum known as slavers thus could become wealthy.

"Miscegenation, most typically between white men and black women, and the consequent mixed offspring of such unions, was one of the most bizarre aspects of American slavery. The sexual exploitation by white masters of their female slaves was a conspicuous part of Southern life."—Page Smith, Ph.D., A People's History of the Young Republic, Vol 3, The Shaping of America (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1980), p 447. See also William I. Bowditch, "White Slavery In The United States" (New York, N.Y.: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1855)

"'There is not a likely-looking black girl in the state,' a planter had told Frederick Law Olstead, 'that is not the concubine of a white man. There is not an old plantation in which the grandchildren of the owner are not whipped in the field by the overseers.'" —Lerone Bennett, Jr., Before the Mayflower: supra, chap. 10, p 251.

Wherefore abolitionists had correctly said that "The Slave States are Sodoms, and almost every village family is a brothel," citing "a million and a half of slave women, some of them without even the tinge of African blood . . . prey to the unbridled lusts of their masters."

Naturally, the South hated the "damn Yankees" for spoiling and ending their "fun."

One planter lamented about the change, "I never did a day's work in my life, and don't know how to begin." Source: Richard W. Murphy, ed. The Civil War: The Nation Reunited: War's Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), p 33. (Details)

Worse for blacks, slavers had discovered, to their surprise, that blacks could fight. They'd fought for the Union, about 200,000 of them (200 regiments). See, e.g., Prof. Bruce Levine's Fall of the House of Dixie. Unreconstructed Southerners accordingly decided on genocide against blacks.

The Ku Klux Klan was created with a goal to "kill or drive away leading Negroes and only let the humble and submissive remain." Theirs was a "moderate voice" in comparison to the fact that Southern OFFICIALS early decided upon genocide (100% extermination) as policy. The Memphis "chief of police told his men to ‘kill the last damned one of the nigger race, and burn up the cradle." Source: Richard W. Murphy, ed. The Civil War: The Nation Reunited: War's Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), p 34.

Admittedly, there were some Federal troops, but demobilization was the Union goal (only 50,000 remaining after 800,000 were "mustered out" before 1865 ended), understandably trying to return to normal life after the catastrophe caused by the South's genocidal activity. This southern terrorist goal of genocide continued, as one Southerner admitted, "If you take away the military from Tennessee, the buzzards can't eat up the naggers as fast as we'll kill ‘em." Source: Richard W. Murphy, ed. The Civil War: The Nation Reunited: War's Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), pp 25 and 36.

Unreconstructed Southerners, tobacco farmers, murderers, rapists, terrorists, were enraged that we moral Yankees had "stolen their slaves." They had enjoyed raping women, now we moral Yankees stopped their fun. They were mad. The revenge process, killing Yankees and blacks, was soon evident. For example, see the book by Sidney Andrews, The South Since The War (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), especially pp 1-11 and 21-28. Such southerners deemed murder a right!

"A crime storm of devastating [terrorist] fury swept over the South. Negro school houses and churches were burned. Ears were cropped and throats cut. Men and women were stabbed, maimed, outraged, shot and hanged. Others were hunted and killed by dogs. In North and South Carolina alone, within a period of eighteen months, General Canby reported 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault. In Alabama corpses dangled for months from trees to poison the air and make the traveler sick with horror. . . .'there is not one man or woman in all the South who believes they [blacks] are free, but we consider them as stolen property—stolen by the bayonets of the damnable United states government.'"—Prof. Oscar Sherwin, Prophet of Liberty: The Life and Times of Wendell Phillips (New York: Bookman Associates, 1958), pp 529-530.

Union General Carl Schurz (assigned in the South) wrote a Report on his findings: "Wherever I go, the street, the shop, the house, the hotel, or the steamboat, I hear the people talk in such a way as to indicate that they are yet unable to conceive of the Negro as possessing any [human] rights at all. Men who are honorable in their dealings with their white neighbors will cheat a Negro without a single twinge of their honor. To kill a Negro they do not deem murder; to debauch a Negro woman, they do not think fornication; to take the property away from a Negro, they do not consider robbery."—Senate Executive Document No. 2, Report of Carl Schurz, Condition of the South, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p 81.

Union General Philip H. Sheridan saw this Southern killing-mentality against blacks, "over the killing of many freedmen in the settlements, nothing is done." Asked what he thought of Texas, he said scathingly commenting on their low morals and genocidal mentality, "If I owned hell and Texas, I would rent Texas out and live in hell." See Phil Sheridan and His Army (Lincoln: Univ of Nebraska Press, 1985; and Norman: Univ of Oklahoma Press, 1999), by Univ. of New Mexico History Prof. Paul Andrew Hutton (1949-).
See also Prof. James M. Smallwood, Barry A. Crouch, and Larry Peacock, Murder and Mayhem: The War of Reconstruction in Texas (College Station: Texas A&M Univ Press, 2003), p 16 (Review 1,
2,
3).

Ed. Note: Texas' moral depravity is well-depicted in the movie “The Last Picture Show” (1971), one episode of debauchery after another.

"The plan: reduce blacks to political impotence. How? By the boldest and most ruthless political operation in American history. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and maimings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mother's arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife's feet, the raping of the wife before her husband's eyes. By Fear."—Lerone Bennett, Jr., Before the Mayflower: A History of the Negro in America 1619-1964, rev. ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), chap. 8, p 197.

"The [Southern] white population organized for war. The Negro population, at the same time, was [unconstitutionally] systematically disarmed. By hook and crook, on any and every pretext, the homes of Negroes were searched and arms were systematically appropriated [confiscated]" (Bennett, p 216).

Re a disarmed people, oppressors' violence as per their motivation, follows.

To prevent the election as President of General Ulysses S. Grant, unreconstructed Southerners used mass violence. “In the South, white supremacists launched a campaign of terror designed to prevent blacks and their supporters from voting. ‘I intend to kill Radicals [pro-voting rights activists],’ vowed the Ku Klux Klan’s General Nathan Bedford Forrest; subsequently, more than 200 political murders were reported in Arkansas alone.” Source: Richard W. Murphy, ed. The Civil War: The Nation Reunited: War’s Aftermath (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1987), p 76.

Southerners had prevented both blacks and mulattoes from voting before, says Virginia author S. G. Tucker, Dissertation on Slavery (1796), pp 17-18, footnote f. Southerners, having not repented of their immoralities, determined to continue that approach.

Neo-Confederate Southerners' immediate "issue" was their opposition to "Reconstruction." They were being forced to allow public education, allow blacks (for whom reading and writing had formerly been illegal) to learn to read and write, allow blacks to vote. (Southerners also supported a concerted attack on education to 'dumb it down,' e.g., to delete teaching of the American culture and rights awareness that had led to anti-slavery activism.)

The unreconstructed South adopted the manipulation tactics herein described so fast as to be able, in a mere eight years, to alter the 1876 election results. Yes, in a mere eight (8) years, the South established sufficent disenfranchisement tactics to obstruct the 1876 election, a mere 8 years after Grant had won, wom by virtue of the black vote.

The South did "defeat" the ex-Civil War Union general candidate for President, Rutherford B. Hayes. How? by fraud, violence against, and intimidation of, would-be black voters.

Rutherford B. Hayes himself said so, in his diary. Note from five days after election day 7 Nov 1876, his November 12 entry:

"We shall, the fair-minded men of the country will, history will, hold that the [Yankee candidates himself and intended Vice-President] were by fraud, violence, and intimidation, by a nullification of the Fifteenth Amendment, deprived of the victory which [we] fairly won."

Note Rutherford's November 27 diary entry: "A fair election would have given us about forty electoral votes in the South. . . . [The racist South has won, has defeated us] by violence, intimidation, and fraud . . . ."

But as candidate Hayes' party still controlled the Presidency (Grant), the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the 15 member Election Analysis Commission, the South
did condescend to allow him to take office, but only by his surrendering on principle, agreeing to immediately

(1) end "Reconstruction," and

(2) drop all constitutional enforcement action that would enable blacks to vote thereafter, without being subjected to violence and intimidation.

The 1876 presidential election results were stalled until the morning of 2 March 1877, only HOURS before the inauguration 4 March! No corrupt Supreme Court, unlike in the 2000 election, intervened, forced a halt to voting-system analysis.

Since the South forced President Hayes' (1877-1881) to cease protecting blacks' right to vote, the right of blacks to vote was thus practically ended by that stolen 1876 election. Not until almost a century later, with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, was genuine effort made to begin anew "Reconstruction," enforcing the right of blacks to vote.

As we see here, the neo-Confederate South has obstructed that modern "Reconstruction," via the criminalization process described herein.

No more cannons aimed at would-be voters, instead, manufactured criminal records; and police road-blocks at approaches to election polling places, and assaults of persons educating blacks on their right to vote. See, e.g., Cassandra Spratling, "Facing danger, fighting to be free" (Detroit Free Press, 30 January 2011, pp 1A, 4A-5A ), police use of pistol-whippings, and false charges of "disturbing the peace" and "bringing an uprising among the people."

Above, we said there was a loop-hole. That loop-hole was, and still is, this. The U.S. Constitution allowed slavery as a penalty for crime, i.e., allowed imprisonment. (In constitutional terms, imprisonment is a form of slavery; being imprisoned is tantamount to being a slave.)

The U.S. Constitution allowed disenfranchisement of criminals.

Mark that well; the Constitution allows slavery (jail) and disenfranchisement for crime!

This is a loop-hole in the Thirteenth Amendment that the ex-Confederates ruthlessly exploited then and still exploit now.

"Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications, while [white crimes such as] robbery and murder, and other [white] crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not," Ratliff, p 267, and Shapiro, p 541.

"'Among the disqualifying crimes were those to which he [the would-be black voter] was [believed] esprcially prone: thievery, adultery, arson, wife-beating, housebreaking, and attempted rape. Such crimes as murder and fighting, to which the white man was as disposed as the Negro, were significantly omitted from the [voter disqualiification] list,'" says Shapiro, p 541 citing Francis B. Simpkins, Pitchfork Ben Tillman (1944), p 297.

Said the Mississippi Supreme Court in a decision analyzing the 1892 Mississippi Constitutional Convention: "[T]he convention swept the circle of [adopted all] expedients [tactics, devices, tricks of wording] to obstruct the exercise of the franchise by the negro race. By reason of its previous condition of servitude and dependence, this race had [the disenfranchisers felt] acquired or accentuated certain particularities of habit, of temperament and of character, which clearly distinguished it, as a race, from that of the whites—a patient, docile people, but careless, landless, and migratory within narrow limits, without forethought, and its criminal members given rather to furtive offenses than to the robust [violent] crimes of the whites. Restrained by the federal constitution from discriminating against the negro race [per se], the convention discriminated against its characteristics and the offenses to which its weaker members were [believed] prone. . . . Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications, while robbery and murder, and other crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not."--Ratliff v Beale, 74 Miss 247, 265-266; 20 So 865 (1896), cited by Shapiro, p 541.

"At their [respective state constitutional] conventions, other states, including South Carolina (1895), Louisiana (1898), Alabama (1901), and Virginia (1901-02), also disenfranchised criminals selectively with the intent of disqualifying a disproportionate number of blacks. As in Mississippi, legislators in these states thought that blacks were more likely to commit "furtive offenses" such as petty theft than "robust crimes" such as murder." Shapiro, p 541.

"In 1985, the [U.S. Supreme] Court held in Hunter v. Underwood [471 US 222; 105 S Ct 1916; 85 L Ed 2d 222] that an Alabama law disenfranchising certain criminal offenders violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because the [disenfranchisement] law had a disproportionate impact on blacks and was adopted with racially discriminatory intent." Shapiro, at 542.

After disenfranchising for crimes, the disenfranchisers went about their Next Step.

Ex-Confederates did not passively await black crime, but set out to cause it.

Read that sentence again.

The ex-slavers determined to CAUSE crime, for the purpose of then denying so-called "criminals" the right to vote.

Southern atrocities before the Civil War had included use of violence to commit election fraud in Kansas. Slavers feared 1850's Kansas might develop a 'free' majority (voters who would vote against slavery). So large numbers of pro-slavery Missourians (called "border ruffians") crossed the border into Kansas, killing legitimate residents, supporting hanging the Governor, threatening election workers, and voting! in such large numbers as to alter election results!

And blacks had a near drug-free record until the 'civil rights' era. Slaves had not been allowed to smoke and drink. Too much of a bad effect (example, on the Zulus 1840's - 1880's), the slavers knew!

During slavery, it was illegal to sell intoxicants to slaves. See, e.g., an 1840 Ordinance against grocers selling liquor, for this reason officially cited in a prosecution,

"The object of these Ordinances is to prevent, if possible, the vending of spiritous liquor to slaves [as] it was found by experience that this [grocer sales] was an easy method of . . . selling spirits to slaves."—City Council v Ahrens, 35 SC (4 Strob) 241, 254, 257; 15 SC Annot Ed 126, 133-134 (Feb 1850).

Blacks were nearly drug-free until the civil-rights era of the 1960's. Activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and others were seeking civil rights. This was in public accommodations, travel, housing, education, contexts, and VOTING. Neo-Confederates' attitudes, as discussed herein, were hostile.

Such activism occurred in context of the events described by Prof. ClarenceLusane, Ph.D., No Easy Victories: Black Americans and the Vote
(new York: Grolier Pub, 1996) (citing "history of the African-American attempt to gain the right to vote [that] begins with the Revolutionary War, continues through the Civil War, Reconstruction, the New Deal, the second Civil Rights Movement that culminated in the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, to the historic Jackson campaign for the Democratic nomination. [Includes] accounts of the black members of Congress before 1965, the Black Congressional Caucus in the 1970s, and the dramatic increase in the numbers of black elected officials after 1965. ")

Bigots, racists, and neo-Confedereates were hostile. How to halt the 1950's-60's Civil Rights movement, was a priority for such bigots, racists, neo-Confederates. Answer: use post-gateway drugs! alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. To do that, use the starter drug, hook children.
They knew this: "The first step toward addiction may be as innocent as a boy's puff on a cigarette in an alleyway," said the U.S. Supreme Court in Robinson v California, 370 US 660, 670; 82 S Ct 1417; 8 L Ed 2d 758 (1962).

Never mind, such bigots felt, that the case also stands for the proposition that starting a war on drugs is unconstitutional. How so? Because, says the Supreme Court, criminalizing a disease is unconstitutional. Drug addiction is a disease, as per the brain-altering, hyperexciteability aspects. Inherent characteristics of the disease include acts demonstrating impairment of impulse and ethical controls—abulia, in short. Such acts include needle-use, drug-carrying, drug-taking, etc. These are inherently part of the disease, just as coughing is inherently part of tobacco-caused lung cancer.

A second constitutional point is this. Remember Prohibition? Re the 'war on alcohol,' why didn't Congress just ban it? Answer: Doing so was deemed unconstitutional.

"Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,—to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. . . .

"Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace [police], unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).

Wherefore, an alcohol ban was unconstitutional, unless explicitly constitutionalized, as by the Eighteenth Amendment.
The same is true for the other now-illegal drugs--made illegal by neo-Confederates in legislatures and Congress.

The bigots creating the 'war on drugs' knew they couldn't sell the public on

But the bigots creating the 'war on drugs' knew they could demonize the unknown drugs, accuse those drugs of causing horrors! (details below). They could "sell" a war on the newly demonized drugs! even tobacco "antidotes" like cocaine. Then, with specific anti-drug laws passed, they could target blacks: ". . . the war on drugs . . . started as a war against minorities," says Kenneth Michael White, CXLVI Newsweek, p 15 (10 October 2005). It'd begun by at least the 1840's as a war against China, to force opium into China. See, e.g., George W. F. Mellen, Unconstitutionality (Boston: Saxton & Pierce, 1841), p 91, ftn 3. Thus the so-called "War on Drugs" is a failure, as it was never ended to end drugs, as it never targeted the starter drug, but minorities. See background on the "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War" (Sunday, 8 July 2012).

Here are examples:

Some analysts report, though the CIA in the U.S. government denies it, a U.S. government, e.g., CIA and Pentagon, role in drug smuggling, including of crack cocaine, with blacks the targeted group.

Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money, and the CIA (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987) cited, as a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter—and biographer of Pope John Paul II—examples of government officials (Pentagon military, etc.), smuggling drugs into the U.S. and taking action against those rare honest government agents who wanted to halt the drug smuggling. The U.S. Army would take investigators of drug trafficking who caught "seniors" in the military, off that duty, and put them on combat duty!

Michael Levine, a retired Drug Enforcement Agency agent, in The Big White Lie (NY: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993), cited official undermining of the war on drugs, making it an "illusion."

Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (1998) (cart) (" the issue of the intelligence agency's connections to drug trafficking, initially brought to light during the Vietnam War and then again by the Iran-Contra affair. This text shows that under the cover of national security and covert operations, the US government protected major international drug traffickers.")

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press (Verso Books, 1 August 1998) (a chronicle of ties to drug runners, from World War II through the Contra Wars and the Taliban in Afghanistan:
"A shocking expose of the CIA's role as drug baron, White-Out surveys the violent storm provoked by a series of articles written by Gary Webb for the San Jose Mercury News which charged the agency [CIA] with smuggling cocaine into the U.S. for the purpose of undermining the youth in black urban neighborhoods.")

Robert Parry, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' (Media Consortium, 1999) (Review)
(the CIA was "engaged in direct support to a band of contras characterized by drug-running, money-laundering, corruption, rape, torture, routine murders, and perhaps worse of all, total incompetence and ineffectiveness.")

William L. Marcy, Ph.D., The Politics of Cocaine (Lawrence Hill Books, 2010) (" takes a hard look at the role the United States played in creating the drug industry that thrives in Central and South America. . . . the United States helped establish and strengthen the drug trade as the area's economic base. Increased militarization, destabilization of governments, uncontrollable drug trafficking, more violence, and higher death tolls resulted. Marcy explores how the counternarcotics policies of the 1970s collapsed during the 1980s when economic calamity, Andean guerrilla insurgencies, and Reagan's anti-Communist struggle with Nicaragua and Cuba became conflated as part of the War on Drugs. The book then explores how the U.S. invasion of Panama and narcotics related violence throughout Andean region during the 1990s led to the militarization of the War on Drugs as a way to confront narcotics production, narco-traffickers, and narco-guerrillas alike. Marcy brings to the reader up to the end of the Bush administration and explains why to this date the United States remains unable to control the flow of cocaine into the United States and why the War on Drugs appears to be spiraling out of control. The Politics of Cocaine fills in historical gaps and provides a new and controversial analysis of a complex and seemingly unsolvable problem.")

Blacks being nearly drug-free, could not make the massive arrangements for drugs to be mass-grown (in foreign nations), loaded and transported, the infrastructure for this including airplanes, and imported into the U.S., priority, black dwelling areas. This required U.S. government, police, and Mafia (organized crime) cooperation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was headed by J. Edgar Hoover, and his anti-black ideology. The government-FBI-police-crime alliance to do mass-drug-importing into black areas then came about. Goal: to obstruct the black civil rights era activism, including voting.

There are known examples of government officials, i.e., among ranking U.S. military officers controlling airplanes, smuggling drugs into the U.S., and taking action against (transferring to other jobs!) those rare honest government agents who wanted to halt the smuggling.
See Kwitny's book, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money, and the CIA, supra.

Wherefore, abolitionists had urgently advised the newly freed slaves not to smoke and drink. Remember, the data linking smoking and crime was known PRIOR to the Civil War, and being repeatedly re-confirmed.

Unreconstructed Southerners saw the same data, recalled their chemical warfare acts during the Civil War, and realized that they had a weapon to destroy the black vote, the criminalization process. (This is not to overlook the use of sheer terror tactics, murder, lynching, etc. This site focuses not on such illegal acts, but on the use of "legal" means to the wicked goal, just as Hitler would later use "legal" means to achieve his wicked goals).

Ex-Confederates perverted that medical knowledge (medical knowledge can be perverted, remember the Tuskegee syphilis experiment?) by using it to cause "black" crime, thus convictions and loss of the right to vote.

Read that sentence again. The neo-Confederate goal is to reenslave blacks via the crime-causation process, thus constitutionally massively reduce blacks' right to vote. The original Constitution's 3/5 clause was read to mean that blacks should only be counted as 3/5 of a white person. Five blacks = three white persons. Depriving vast numbers of blacks of the right to vote, by criminalizing them, still accomplishes the same!

“When you head South, you're talking about two things—tobacco farmers and evangelicals,” said Ralph Reed. Ex-Confederates (racists) see the goal in all its multi-facets:

to cause "black" crime via the tobacco - drugging process

to re-enslave via prison,

then to disenfranchise them.

Racists' victims barely realize what this process is that is happening to them, and so are near-defenseless.

They are often unaware of white reformers' opposition to the use of tobacco as the starter drug leading into the cycle that leads to crime and disenfranchisement.

Too often, racists' tobacco-using victims are hooked into "wanting" (without "informed choice and consent") to do what 'massa' had been allowed to do (to smoke and drink), while forbidding slaves to do likewise. The use of tobacco, to racists' victims, seems to be an element of freedom, whereas it is in reality a left-over vestige of slavery, and a particularly vicious one. (See 1882 Example.)

Cigarette ads target minorities. Compare big cities and suburbs; contrast them; notice the difference. It is conspicuous. It promotes chemical slavery, the term for "slavery to an addiction." And a major part of the neo-Confederate criminalization process is the "smoking is a right" myth, the modern version of their old "slavery is a right" myth.

Nothing in any Constitution says ingesting poisonous substances is a right; ask Dr. Kevorkian's jailers!! In fact, under the Constitution, there is a common law right to freedom from air-borne poison, the common law "right to fresh and pure air."

The Detroit, Michigan, African-American Museum (Detroit) has exhibits on slavery. If you have opportunity to go there, you will see the large collection of life-size statues of children, slaves. During slavery, slavers targeted children to be kidnaped, captured, and enslaved. Children are still not safe from slavery. Now there is chemical slavery. Children are still being targeted, especially minority children. See E. A. Klonoff, et al, Sales of Cigarettes to Minors, 87 Am J Pub Health (#5) 823-826 (May 1997), and the Surgeon General Report, Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups (1998). There are more cigarette and alcohol billboards in minority areas, more liquor stores in higher percentages.

Tobacco is typically the gateway (starter) drug, age 11-12, so 90% of criminals are smokers. Racists deem it a "white" drug; arresting its pushers a burden on the judicial system; subsequent drugs in the drug sequence (cocaine, etc.), "black" drugs; disproportionately arresting blacks, NOT a burden on the judicial system. This type racism is the real truth behind the notorious Budzyn-Nevers situation (the beating death of an alleged black post-gateway drug user). Talk privately to officers; you will verify the racist law enforcement policy, including honest officer fear of being labeled a "whistleblower" if they do not go along. The racists don't want to enforce the law properly; and the honest ones fear to.

Now you know what the racists know: the secret in 'racial profiling.' The police know the century-old 90% profile factor, white male smokers doing 90% of the crime. This fact has been known since the 1830's, i.e., since before the Civil War! But modern 'racial profiling' carefully avoids mentioning this factor. Instead, disinformation is provided by the media. For an exposé of media disinformation, see, e.g., “Coloring Crime: Race, Violence and Media Manipulation” by Tim Wise (1 June 2003).

The fact that media disinformation on who commits crime, and their color, can be gotten away with, arises from the media censorship of sensitive tobacco and racism news. The tobacco-aspects censorship is called the "tobacco taboo." It does not mention the old 90% profile (white, male smokers), only the new neo-Confederate-caused view.

In the blatant racist era, “black people were . . . being lynched, or driven from their homes. In some places blacks who tried to vote lost their jobs. In some states blacks were arested on minor charges with the intention of making them work on plantations, picking cotton or peanuts, when cheap labor was needed.” Cited by Walter Dean Myers, Malcolm X (New York: Scholastic, Inc, 1993), p 29.

Wherefore, with trivial matters being subjected to disproportionate penalties (as for example, had happened to Malcolm, a long prison sentence), “What Elijah Muhammad [correctly and wisely] said to Malcom . . . was not to consider himself a criminal. . . . You are not the criminal. The criminals are the whites who, through their racism [documented, e.g., here] have forced you into the acts you have committed,” p 68.

As a result of this information, and taking into account the massive racist obstruction of blacks from equal-pay jobs and careers, Malcolm “wondered how many other black men, how many other prisoners in prisons across the country, could have and should have led useful, productive lives [had they been allowed equal employment opportunity and not been targeted for criminalization]. People didn't want to be criminals,” pp 74-75.

We see this fact documented here. Crimes are consciously, maliciously made, turned into criminals, by a long and well-documented process, as outlined here and at our preventcrime.htm site.
Tobacco is known as the starter drug, leading to other drugs being used. The 'money-trail' is known to link to funding terrorists. Politicians nonetheless refuse to deal with the tobacco role in drugs and the 'money-trail' and terrorism, no matter the number of resultant casualties. Instead, the political focus is to continue the abuses herein cited, and even to use the terrorism issue as an excuse, pretext, or cover story for yet more repression, further disproportionately impacting minorities.

Irving Younger, "The Perjury Routine," The Nation (8 May 1967), pp 596-97 ("Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace.")

Sarah Barlow, "Patterns of Arrests for Misdemeanor Narcotics Possession: Manhattan Police Practices 1960-62," 4 Crim. L. Bull. 549, 549-50 (1968) (presenting data showing that "dropsy testimony"—i.e., police testimony that an arrestee had dropped drugs as the police came upon them—increased after Mapp v. Ohio imposed the exclusionary rule on state police, indicating that the "police are lying about the circumstances of such arrests so that the contraband which they have seized illegally will be admissible as evidence.").

Fred Cohen, "Police Perjury: An Interview with Martin Garbus," 8 Crim. L. Bull. 363, 367 (1972) ("[A]mong all the lawyers that I know—whether they are into defense work or prosecution—not one of them will argue that systematic police perjury does not exist. We may differ on its extent, its impact . . . but no trial lawyer that I know will argue that police perjury is nonexistent or sporadic.")

David Wolchover, "Police Perjury in London," 136 New L.J. 181, 183 (1986) (estimating that police officers lie in 3 out of 10 trials)

Myron W. Orfield, Jr., "Deterrence, Perjury, and the Heater Factor: An Exclusionary Rule in the Chicago Criminal Courts," 63 U. Colo. L. Rev. 75, 107 (1992) (survey of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges indicates a belief that, on average, perjury occurs 20% of the time, with defense attorneys estimating it occurs 53% of the time in connection with Fourth Amendment [illegal search] issues; only 8% believe that police never, or almost never, lie in court)

Christopher Slobogin, "Testilying: Police Perjury and What To Do About It," 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037 (Fall 1996) ("Police, like people generally, lie in all sorts of contexts for all sorts of reasons. This article has focused on police lying designed to convict individuals the police think are guilty. Strong measures are needed to reduce the powerful incentives to practice such testilying and the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to do anything about it.")

Next, notice the case of Leary v U.S., 383 F2d 851 reh den 392 F2d 220 rev'd 395 US 6, 41; 89 S Ct 1532; 23 L Ed 2d 57 (Tex, 19 May 1969). This is a marijuana case. Notice its page 41, tracing marijuana-use history to near-exclusive use solely by poverty-stricken minorities. The bigots in Congress and state legislatures applying the neo-Confederate strategy of criminalizing drugs only at the post-starter drug stage [i.e., post-cigarettes] know this; you should too. (There are some corrupt, malicious media types who do aid and abet.)

The neo-Confederate influence was clear early on in the 'war on drugs':

A corrupt and racist Commissioner of Narcotics and U.S. Attorney published alleged ill effects of drug use, but falsified, i.e., included tobacco effects.—Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger and U.S. Attorney William F. Tompkins, The Traffic in Narcotics (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), pp 267 and 336. They knew that "all" drug addicts were smokers, p 196. Nonetheless, they falsified, and their lying drugs-blaming list included:

To compound their falsification, this lying, immoral, depraved Narcotics Commissioner and U.S. Attorney (federal prosecutor) said of tobacco, it does "cause little harm and [is] culturally acceptable . . . and . . . not regarded as addicting," p 243.

So these vicious depraved drug czars, liars, Anslinger and Tompkins said, ignore tobacco use, but criminalize and prosecute intensely the mere use of post-gateway drugs! Jail the drug users for years or decades to save them from these terrible [oft-tobacco] effects! (Shades of Vietnam, 'destroy the village to save it'!)

The vile Ansligner-Tompkins team could count on malicious legislators to pass the vicious laws they wanted. And drug czars ever after have continued in their corrupt, lying pattern, saying nary a word on the starter drug, all focus aimed at post-starter drugs.

After Anslinger and Tompkins wrote, a rebuttal was written. This subsequent joint American Bar - Medical Association Report rebuttal in essence opposed the racism, three ways, by

opposing criminalizing use of post-gateway drugs,

refuting their purported ill effects, and

citing real causes (e.g., poverty).

The government under neo-Confederate influence limited printing of (censored) and denounced the ABA-AMA Report, so as to limit the number of copies! Fortunately the Indiana University Press published it: ABA-AMA, Drug Addiction: Crime or Disease (Indiana Univ Press, 1961), p 49.

One area lawmaker, in the Michigan House of Representatives, admitted that the current legislative and police view is that preventing racism in the criminal justice system is a burden, is opposed, and that the 1909 gateway drug prevention law WILL NOT be enforced EVER. Nor, of course, adopted as law anywhere else.

Police officers understand this. For example, in the runup to Michigan's smoke-free law, in the article by Mitch Hotts, "Bars bid adieu to cigarettes, cigars, with one last smoking bash," Macomb Daily (28 April 2010), pp 1 and 6, retired police officer Carl Timm is quoted on p 6. "A bar is a bar is a bar is a bar." "I feel the individual bar owners should have control over their places of business. To many people, a cigarette or cigar goes hand in hand with a beer." His attitude was summarized as "feel the state is infringing on smokers' rights." One would not expect, with such an attitude, that any anti-tobacco enforcement was ever taken! with respect to the law, MCL §750.27, MSA § 28.216! no action to deal with the starter drug, so more post-starter-drug cases for arresting!

Sample Integrity Test

Test your area politicians, police, prosecutors, judges. Ask them their priority. Do they focus on the starter drug to PREVENT drug abuse? Or, is their approach solely, after-the-factism?
Ask them their action against tobacco. Ask them if they prosecute tobacco pushers for poisoning/murder as per case law precedents.
Note whether they try putting you off with generalities.
Don't let them bluff you with generalities. Ask for specifics. Ask specifically what they have done against tobacco, arrests and prosecutions of tobacco pushers, sentences imposed, laws proposed, hearings held on non-enforcement of existing anti-starter-drug laws, etc.
If you find that the integrity rate among such people is above the zero level . . . .

In your mind, go back to before the Civil War, visit a prison. Do a count, a statistical analysis. You'll find mostly white faces, mostly smokers. Systemwide, both the honest officials and the unreconstructed Confederates knew that, and the data linking smoking and crime.

Some (the honest ones) decided, 'Let's use that data to prevent crime.'

Others (the unreconstructed Confederates) looked at the same data and said, 'Let's use that data to cause crime among the target population (blacks).'

The neo-Confederates know this. You should too.

Nazis used the same technique, "criminalizing [people] for real or fabricated violations of the law"! Nazis "decided that, to the extent possible, the most effective [persecution] policy would be to employ means that had the appearance of legality."—Eric A. Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans (New York: Perseus Basic Books, 1999), p 419.
Note also that the U.S. jailings of blacks is in numbers similar to that of Jews in the Nazi era.
The U.S. has more people proportionately in prison than the modern dictatorship of Red China!
And there are reports of U.S. troops being indoctrinated to shoot Americans, including their families and friends, who would resist rights violations by government officials. See, e.g., the article by Paul Joseph Watson, "U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens" (4 February 2008).

Cigarettes Are Illegal

Cigarette hazards were known well over a century ago. The first Surgeon General (Benjamin Rush, M.D.) said it in the 1790's! The Farmers' Almanac cited it in 1836! The Michigan House had a report on the subject in 1889.
Iowa banned cigarettes in 1897. Tennessee banned cigarette sales in 1897. The tobacco lobby challenged the ban in the case of Austin v State of Tennessee, 179 US 343 (1900). The courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee cigarette sales ban. The hazard was already known! Indeed, the addictiveness aspect was reported as early as 1527! The first product liability case for tobacco dangerousness occurred in 1915!

.
Vengeance-seeking Confederates saw the pattern, and began targeting their still-hated foe, in a pattern continuing to present.

Cigarettes are still illegal in Michigan pursuant to MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216 (1909), and laws of the type that gave rise to case law including People v Carmichael, 5 Mich 10; 71 Am Dec 769 (1858); The Nurnberg Trial, 6 FRD 69 (1946); People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 494-6; 527 NW2d 714, 739-9 (1994). This author's contact with Governor John Engler resulted in two verifications of the law from James K. Haveman, Jr., Director, Department of Community Health:

Cigarette advertising aids and abets illegal cigarette sales. That starts children, and minorities disproportionately, on the gateway drug, the starter drug. It is primarily smokers that is the population base for entering the lifestyle of drugs. Wherefore, cities that want to prevent DWB ban cigarette ads and cigarettes, that heads off the drug problem, means less crime, which in turn means fewer police, so less opportunity for DWB.

To help fight DWB, work for your jurisdiction to pass such laws as herein described, or if they already exist, to get them enforced.

Cigarettes and Racism

Tobacco is typically the gateway (starter) drug, hooking children around age 11-12, so 90% of criminals are smokers. Racists deem tobacco a "white" drug; and arresting its pushers a burden on the judicial system. But racists deem subsequent drugs in the drug sequence (cocaine, etc.), "black" drugs; disproportionately arresting blacks, NOT a burden on the judicial system.

Here is an example of how this selective enforcement works in Michigan. Both the gateway drug, and post-gateway drugs, are illegal. Arrests at the gateway drug seller level would prevent the post gateway drug problem even arising. (Pre-cigarettes, there was essentially no drug problem).

Which law do racist officers enforce? Do you see them enforce the cigarette ban? You know the answer: NEVER. The cigarette ban, MCL § 750.27, is never enforced, only laws against post-gateway drugs—a policy of premeditated racism. Talk privately to officers; you will verify the non-enforcement policy, including officer fear of being labeled a "whistleblower" if they enforce the anti-cigarette law against the "white" drug cigarettes. The racists don't want to enforce the law; and the honest ones fear to (due to foreseeable reprisal).

Ask your officials, do you support arrests for illegal cigarette sales? If so, have you made that fact known? Have you ever spoken against the gateway drug? If not, why would the honest ones think you'd support them? Be aware that public and officials' silence tells the racist ones they can continue their racist policy of arresting blacks for post-gateway drugs, but never do a thing to arrest pushers of the gateway drug, the "white" drug. Worst case, do your officials/you use the gateway drug? If so, this is setting a bad example, encouraging crime and racism.

Slavery involved raising tobacco (until cotton came along) and raping women. Our abolitionist ancestors knew that. Michigan was an abolitionist state, our cigarette ban can be seen as a boycott of a slave product, much like modern era boycotts of apartheid products from South Africa some years back.

In essence, the enslavement of "prison" is a worse enslavement than the original slavery. Northerners were sympathetic to slaves then.

But simply change the label, call "enslavement" by the label "prison," label "slaves" as "prisoners," presto, the sympathy vanishes. (Even memory of the above chart-referenced-data vanishes! Much less, taking into account the debilitating effects.)

This is the malicious reality on which neo-Confederates count. And they have succeeded in their malice for over 130 years!

One aspect of the neo-Confederate plot to jail blacks, is to enlist black anti-drug activists. The neo-Confederate scam is to tell such activists, to this effect: Post-gateway drugs disproportionately impact black communities, wherefore, their use must be criminalized! The rebuttal (deal with the gateway drug, thus essentially moot the post-gateway drug useage) goes unheard.

And the neo-Confederate scam goes so far as to enlist such activists in opposing efforts to relegalize post-gateway drugs. Other cigarette effects,
cancer, emphysema,
heart disease, etc., are legal. Somehow only the cigarette effect related to post-gateway drugs, must be sharply criminalized!!

The neo-Confederate scam argument is to this effect: If post-gateway drugs are legalized, people won't seek treatment! So they must be jailed! The rebuttal (people seek treatment for other cigarette effects, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc. without them being illegal!) likewise goes unheard.

And note well, that malicious politicians cannot think of these rebuttals for themselves!!! They must be guided by the hand, with kid gloves, preferably filled with large 'campaign contributions.'

So the neo-Confederate targeting goes on decade after decade, unabated.

Obstructing Education

The Old South, pre-1865, had prevented blacks reading and writing, lest they learn their rights against being enslaved. After the war, the old anti-education policy continued 1865-1960's. Schools, if extant at all for blacks, were inferior, segregated, unequal. The process of enforcing desegregation, so as to enable proper and equal education, was long and laborious. Here is a case list of major precedents that led to desegregation in education:

Let's reconsider the example with which this site began, referring to the 1960's-1970's Black Panther Party disproportionate ticketing situation (disproportionate issuance of traffic tickets to their members, a claim the police denied). Prof. Frances K. Heussenstamm's experiment involved twenty university students with excellent driving records, and cars with no defects. Those twenty were assigned to make one change only: attach "Black Panther Party" stickers to the bumpers! The reaction: 33 traffic tickets in 17 days!! See Frances K. Heussenstamm, "Bumper Stickers and Cops," 8 Trans-action: Social Science and Modern Society (4) 32-33 (February 1971).

A black person driving from Nashville, Tennessee to Mound Bayou, Mississippi (a distance of about 314 miles) was stopped 45 times by police! He was in medical school, on the route driving to his assigned final-year-training hospital! This is an example of why the traffic code, designed/intended to enable such official misconduct, is unconstitutional for allowing excessive officer discretion.
Modern DWB is a continuation of the old-pre-1960's DWB.

In an experiment by the latter, 36 judges were given a hypothetical misdemeanor case to decide the penalty. The penalty was three to ten days jail if the accused was identified as white; five to thirty days if deemed black.

Wherefore it is clear that race is a key determinant in

(a) being arrested in the first place and

(b) the penalty imposed.

These facts in turn corroborate the mass refusal to prosecute illegal gateway drug pushers, tobacco manufacturers and sellers (white crime), and to prosecute only at the post-gateway drug stage (black crime).

People v Portelli, 15 NY2d 235; 205 NE2d 857; 257 NYS2d 931 (1965) (a case wherein "the police brutally beat, kicked and placed lighted cigarette butts on the back of a potential witness under interrogation for the purpose of securing a statement incriminating a third party");

Cox v District of Columbia, 821 F Supp 1 (DC, 1993) (police officer beat and kicked Cox, ground foot into his face, then threw him into paddywagon and drove around so as to slam Cox against walls); and

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966) (the famous case ordering police to read suspects their rights, citing a number of such incidents). See also the introduction to our narrative on prison cases

About 175,000,000 traffic tickets are issued annually in the U.S. Unconstitutional laws are deliberately written to criminalize vast numbers of people, specifically, via non-fact-based speed limits. This enables almost anyone/everyone to be declared a lawbreaker, a criminal, thus subject to being pulled over and ticketed, thus greatly increasing the opportunity for DWB incidents. For more information, see our site on the unconstitutionality of speed limits, and, in a related vein, on seat belt non-useage.

Speed limits disproportionately impact blacks. A New Jersey study publicized Thursday, 21 March 2002, suggests that
black drivers generally speed much more than other drivers (with little difference in 55 mph zones), and with the racial gap primarily widened at higher speed limits, according to an Associated Press Report, in The Macomb Daily (Michigan), p 5A (22 March 2002), entitled "Study: Blacks speed more often."

Election 2000

Bottom Line Election 2000:
1.4 Million Blacks Denied The Right to Vote
A Few Hundred Voters Obstructed:Enough to Swing An Election

Note that "we as citizens have no way of verifying whether or not thousands of elected officials have been validly elected. These officials include Governor George Bush of Texas and Vice-President Albert Gore, both running for President this year," says C. M. Ross, in "Vote Fraud: Will YOUR Vote Be Stolen This November?," Catholic Family News (October 2000).

Paralleling the inability-to-vote is outright disenfranchisement. “On Election Day, nearly 1.4 million voting-age black men—more than one in eight—will be ineligible to cast ballots because of state laws that strip felons of the right to vote.”—“Felonies mean 1 in 8 black men can't vote,” by the Associated Press, in The Macomb Daily (Friday, 22 September 2000), p 6A. “'Here we are, 50 years after the beginning of the civil rights movement, and we actually have an increasing number of African-Americans who are disenfranchised each year,'” said Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, which analyzed 1996 Justice Department statistics along with Human Rights Watch.” “Disenfranchised black males account for 35 percent of all Americans now barred from voting because of felony convictions. Two percent of all Americans, or 3.9 million, have lost the right to vote, compared with13 percent of black men.”

“Chief Justice William Rehnquist's refusal to acknowledge evidence of blatant voter fraud against African Americans was no surprise. Back in 1962, when Rehnquist was a young attorney in Arizona, he led a group of Republican lawyers who systematically challenged the right of minority voters to cast their ballots in that state. Called "Operation Eagle Eye," Rehnquist successfully disenfranchised hundreds of black and brown voters in Phoenix's poor and working class precincts. In 2000, Rehnquist supervised the disenfranchisement, in effect, of the majority of American voters.”—Prof. Manning Marable, “Stealing the Election: The Compromises Of 1876 And 2000” (9 Jan 2001).
Rehnquist's Confederate-style record should have led to a recusal for actual or perceived bias, pursuant to law, 28 USC § 351(c).
Note likewise with Sandra Day O'Connor: "At an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical [election] returns shortly before 8 p.m. . . . she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. 'This is terrible,' she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant the election was 'over,' since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois." "Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her . . . outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years [at least]. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor." See Rochelle Riley, "O'Connor lost her way once," Detroit Free Press (p F1, 3 July 2005), citing a Newsweek article. This type misconduct, refusal to recuse herself when she has a clear personal interest in the matter, helps establish the wrongfulness of the Supreme Court stopping the 2000 Florida vote counting.
With two judges (Rehnquist and O'Connor) biased, had they recused themselves as they should have, the Supreme Court decision would have been 4-3 in favor of Gore. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, tobacco users ( a known mental disorder) should have done likewise. Doing that would have made the vote 4-1 in favor of Gore.
Brooklyn College English Prof. Eric Alterman, Ph.D., in What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (Basic Books, 2003), Chapters 10-11, pp 148-191, cites that Albert Gore, Jr., in fact won the 2000 election.
"Conservatives" are known to falsify facts to come up the results they want. Remember "conservative" Judge Robert Bork. Reagan wanted him on the Supreme Court too! Bork in 1987, was already being cited as misstating facts, to come up with some preconceived result he wanted. The height of unethical (or the aforesaid mental condition), he'd even do that in court cases before him! “'He is ruthlessly result-oriented,' complains one attorney, who accuses Bork of deciding the outcome of cases in advance even if it requires misstating arguments presented to him.”—Ted Gest, “A New Majority Moves to the Right,” 103 US News & World Report (#2) pp 28-29 (13 July 1987).
"That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening events ever to have occurred in this country," says Vincent Bugliosi, in "None Dare Call It Treason" (The Nation, 5 February 2001).
And "the five justices who made up the majority in Florida election case 'are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and in a just world belong behind bars,' while shocking, is supported by past precedent and a statutory reading of the applicable laws governing judicial conduct," says Peter Rothberg, in his review of the article, "'None Dare Call It Treason' in The Nation Magazine" (19 January 2001).
See also Vincent Bugliosi's book on the stealing of the 2000 election, an expansion of his above-cited Treason article, titled The Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave.
As with Roger Taney in the infamous Dred Scott case, the so-called "conservative interpretation" process is to cite history, practice, tradition, to narrow, limit, and obstruct the words of the Constitution. (Of course, using this approach does not mean that "conservatives" do not use misconduct methods (such as not recusing themselves for bias) and misinterpretation, whenever they want to arrive at some other anti-rights decision. Such decisions are reached in advance of the purported "adjudiciation.")
Some may recall that several third party candidates ran for President. In Florida, each received votes. The smallest third party vote in Florida for President went to Ralph Nader. Before the election, he'd been deemed not a factor in the election. Afterwards, some chose to demonize him -- alone among all the third party candidates! -- retroactively deeming him a factor! For background, see the biographical movie, AnUnreasonableMan (2007).

The neo-Confederate plan to debar blacks from voting via criminalization is working.

This keeps their names OFF the voting rolls. Typical poll-watchers are looking to see if people with name ON the list, is stopped from voting. That (as the disenfranchisers know) misses the point; the disenfranchsement process occurred BEFORE election day, keeping the names (disproportionately black) OFF the voter list!

The voter obstruction process is not, was not, primarily, stopping persons with name ON the voter list from voting on Election Day. The real disenfranchisement occurred LONG before Election Day, kept the name from even being listed.

And, let's note the big picture. The U.S. imprisons more people for more so-called crimes than any other country in the free world—five to eight times more citizens per capita than Western European countries. The U.S. prison population increased 500 percent between 1970 and 2000. There was a doubling in the 1990's. Over two million men and women are currently imprisoned in the U.S. More than half of
federal prisoners and a third of state prisoners are serving time for post-gateway-starter-drug offenses (while the gateway starter drug remains—due to lobbyist $$$$$$ influence—politically protected nationwide, except in Michigan!).

Second, let's note that nationwide, about 13% of African-American men were then ineligible to vote, said a 1998 study by the 'Sentencing Project' and the 'Human Rights Watch.' In ten states, more than 20% of black men were debarred from voting.—Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post, "Felon voting rights movement grows," Detroit News, Wed., 24 Feb 1999, p 9A.

This reaffirmed data cited in 1997: Lori Montgomery, "Voting bans for felons mute power of blacks," Detroit Free Press, pp 1A and 12 (Thursday, 30 Jan 1997). The mass denial of the right-to-vote "raises larger questions about whether our criminal justice policies are diluting the political power of the black community," says Marc Mauer, Assistant Director of the Sentencing Project.
"In a country that has a history and legacy of slavery, it's pretty significant that here we are almost into the 21st century, and 15 percent of black men are still disenfranchised," says David Bostitis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

So "from our perspective, it [this voting denial pattern] certainly undermines the power of the black community," says James Ferguson, Executive Director, National Coalition on Black Voter Participation.
In 1901, for example, Alabama manipulated right-to-vote-criteria in this context, with the expressed goal "to establish white supremacy in this state."

"The crime control industries in Wisconsin and Iowa seem to have learned to make the most efficient use of the preferred human material available to them, locking up the few black inhabitants of those states at a rate 11.6 times higher than whites," says Bruce Dixon, "Ten Worst Places to be Black," Black Commentator (Issue # 146) 14 July 2005. The ten worst states are Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Delaware, Nevada, Oregon, California, and Colorado. It is clear that the evil initiated by the neo-Confederates spread.

Marc Mauer and others say "policy makers should re-examine laws that bar felons from voting—or should find ways to send fewer black men to prison." This site shows how to do that.

Only Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have not adopted the neo-Confederate philosophy; they are the only four (4) states that allow prison inmates to vote. The other states take the Confederate position:

Thirty-two (32) states ban voting during parole

Twenty-nine (29) states ban voting while on probation

Forty-six (46) states ban voting while in prison.

Fourteen (14) states including Florida have a life-time debarment from voting! A lifetime ban is the most blatant form of neo-Confederate law.

Florida has the dubious distinction that, it is the No. 1 most disproportionately discriminating state. The massive number of one-third of all the nation's debarred individuals nationwide live there, denied the right to vote.

A Florida senator, James Hargerett, wanted (in 1999) to reduce the life-time debarment to one year after sentence completion, saying "The numbers just sort of leap out at you." "They are really shocking."

As we know, he (and other similar activists) failed to have the Confederate pro-criminalization attitude undone in time for the year 2000 election!

Result: Bush v Gore, 531 US 98; 121 S Ct 525; 148 L Ed 2d 388 (12 Dec 2000).
Note that Bush, a descendant of slavers and a person not electable under standard hiring criteria, and whose father had appointed some the judges, was thereupon awarded the office, despite having won a half million votes less than Candidate Gore. The 5-4 Supreme Court vote alleged that "standardless" recounting was occurring, but carefully avoided citing the "standardless" disenfranchisements.

Details of how Florida disenfranchised blacks en masse include:

ordering exclusions of possible ineligibles, not just actual ineligibles

purging 57,700 names on a "scrub list," 57% African-Americans,

doing the purging without providing notice and pre-decision hearings to those affected.